Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimers disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the textbook example of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins...

Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimers disease.

“Left out earthquakes, bad breath, global warming, and liberalism. This is demonology, not science.”

Science has reached the point where we can find a single molecule of something if you look hard enough. What we don’t know is whether it would have been there in 1918 or 1227. Our bodies are so large compared with the usually insignificant amounts of man made materials that the materials would most likely never have an effect. Also, our bodies are marvelously self-repairing.

These guys would probably have us ban everything man made. When I pointed out to a liberal that banning DDT had led to the deaths of a billion people (through the spread of insect born disease) he said, “Good. It’s better for the planet that they died.” That was my final conversation with him. Life is too short to converse with people who want us all to live in the Stone Age for the good of the planet.

I read the whole thing. I did not intend to do that this early in the morning.

After looking at the credentials of the authors and looking up the definition/meaning of the term “biosemiotics”, heretofore not in my lexicon, I thought that this was going to be environmentalist wacko crap, pure BS.

I speak with authority as one who has joyfully sprayed gallons of Roundup over everything green that I wanted to be dead and gone. So an attack on my favorite herbicide was worth examining.

Still, there are unexplained things going on, such as the literal explosion in autism, c-diff infections, bee colony collapse, etc., so I plowed on. By page 15, they had my attention.

They had a tough case to make, over a tremendously broad spectrum of variables, but they did a good job. They tied numerous tendrils of unexplained smoke together to raise the legitimate issue of fire.

The authors are not demanding that glyphosate be banned, but they do make a compelling case that many of the biologically negative things going on may have this common link and it should be examined for causation.

I agree. I also may rethink my skepticism over organically grown food.

Sorry but I agree with this article. I do eat organic & all beef I consume is grass-fed, as well as only wild-caught seafood. And I avoid GMOs. If that put my ‘conservatism’ in question in your mind then that’s your problem & not mine.

I’ve been a nurse for 16 years. The amount of resistant infections as well as the increase in congenital syndromes as well as autism is remarkably on the rise. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

16
posted on 04/27/2013 5:15:05 AM PDT
by surroundedbyblue
(Why am I both pro-life & pro-gun? Because both positions defend the innocent and protect the weak.)

Importantly, I did not see that the author’s backgrounds qualify them to write a supposedly scholarly article on a biological subject. I have no idea what an “independent scientist and consultant” is, and I can guarantee that no one trained in computer science and artificial intelligence has any in-depth understanding of life sciences or the complex interactions of an organism with its environment.

They made a lot of assertions, none of which are backed up by experimental evidence. Despite a bucket load of references (nearly 300), they omitted any reference that supported their underlying assumptions. Their most glaring (and false) underlying assumption is that toxicity at high doses can be extrapolated down to toxicity at low doses. That is utterly untrue. No one consumes glyphosate at the quantities tested in toxicology studies. Glyphosate also breaks down fairly rapidly in the environment—it does not accumulate anywhere. The main source of toxic exposures would be among people who apply it to crops—and they should be wearing protective equipment to prevent exposure.

Some of their other assertions also show their glaring lack of life sciences education. Trying to tie glyphosate to every bad thing under the sun, especially in situations where a causative factor is already well-known, is not good science. If you want to tie glyphosate exposure at any level to an adverse outcome, you need to actually conduct a study to establish a causative relationship. Their linking glyphosate usage to C. difficile infection, and then going from there to autism is just plain torturous. It would be a beautiful example of “correlation does not equal causation”, except that they don’t even establish a very good correlation. Yes, autism is linked to gastrointestinal problems—but the most likely explanation for that is that the genetic abnormalities in the metabolic pathways that cause autism also cause intestinal defects. Autism behaves very much like a genetic disease, most likely controlled through the synergy of several genes. It’s going to take real scientists a while to figure it all out—they’re making progress, but science never works as fast as pseudoscience.

Anyway, that article is way too long to go through and criticize point-by-point, and reading all of their references to see what the references actually say is way more work than I care to do for the purpose of making a forum post.

20
posted on 04/27/2013 5:38:08 AM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Many orchard owners have noticed a decline in tree health after several years of using roundup to control weeds. It does build up in the soil contrary to Monsanto’s claims. To deny this chemical’s potential problems based on a religious type presupposition is just foolish.

21
posted on 04/27/2013 5:39:41 AM PDT
by freedomfiter2
(Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)

It would never occur to the idiot researchers that the main Western DIET (the sugar, corn, soy, and wheat) is responsible for many human diseases.....

This article was not written by researchers. It was written by two people who do not have any life sciences education whatsoever, who tried to link glyphosate to every bad thing under the sun (okay, I exaggerate a bit) without conducting a single experiment to support their assertions. Although this article is labeled as a review, I cannot even call it that. A review article merely compiles the known information on a specific subject. It is not a collection of extrapolations as this piece is.

22
posted on 04/27/2013 5:42:58 AM PDT
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

Take a giant pot, throw in some motor oil, gasoline, transmission fluid, windshield wiper fluid, round-up, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, various household cleaners including ammonia, bleach and other stuff that have warnings to avoid contact with skin or breathing the vapors then fill it with water.

Voila, your typical drainage system or runoff ditch that empties into a local river, stream or lake.........

With all that crap, I can't help but think that many illnesses just might be caused by these combined agents.........

OK. I am not so familiar with research articles and how they’re written as to spot one that is not genuine.

It sounds so much like the Alar stuff, and DDT before that.

Now, mind you, I do have a problem with food companies trying to breed Round-Up resistant produce for human consumption so they can use Round up on the plants and not have them die. I don’t relish the idea of eating something that has been sprayed THAT much.

HOWEVER, I certainly think the danger is overblown.

The problem is, if someone reads the Gospels at all, one can immediately see that there was no shortage of people for Jesus to heal of any number of various diseases. If the organic food people were correct in their idolization of organic foods, then theoretically, those people in Jesus’ day should have been healthy as all get out. They certainly ate an all natural, no additive, high fiber, organic diet.

And they weren’t.

There is no one cause for most human disease, although diet can be a contributing factor.

27
posted on 04/27/2013 6:04:29 AM PDT
by metmom
(For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)

Does this mean “THEY” gave up on PFOA being the culprit for all encompassing human diseases?

Just 3~4 years ago, every one out of 5 papers (it seemed) was blaming the florination process as our most toxic and carcinogenic compound, and tied to real (or imagined) human chronic diseases.

Before that, it was Splenda, the chlorification of natural sugar. A whole bunch of midddle-aged women (and others) complained all of their illness were tied to Splenda, and solemnly swore their doctors assured them ‘they can not have chlorine or chloride in their body’.

Which reminds me of this article, Everything Causes Cancer!. Even though it is only about 'cancer', but the list could be extended to include all kinds of other human diseases and illness, I am sure.

Time to stock up on Roundup concentrate. Needless to say, I have many, many, bottles. I even still have a boatload of chemicals that Clinton banned - enough to get me through my lifetime here (and they store great).

31
posted on 04/27/2013 6:29:49 AM PDT
by BobL
(Look up "CSCOPE" if you want to see something really scary)

Well worth examining: we have an astounding increase in autism and there is some causative factor - and this could be one of the keys.

I don't know. Studies show increased autism in babies born to older parents, in babies born to parents who are closely related and a whole bunch of other things. Also, you need to take into account the way autism is defined currently. Quite honestly, a lot of extremely bright young men I knew growing up and when my children were growing up would now be defined as somewhere on the autistic scale. It seems we want very badly to stick everyone into some little box. Not all minds are created the same. Not all minds work the same. I am not saying that autism does not exist, I am just saying that some of the things defined as autism are on the outer edges or normal not in the box of abnormal. These differences in how the mind work, have added great benefit to our society.

A woman who has property near our ranch near the Texas coast decided she as going to raise organic beef. She did not vaccinate her cattle for any diseases or spray her pasture for weeds or use any chemical fertilizer. All organic! With in a year she gave it up because her cows were sick and her pasture was gone.

I am dubious about this article for several reasons. The first of which is that it mentioned that it was “peer reviewed” several times. While that may have helped establish credibility in the past, the process of “peer review” has been tainted in recent years by scientific frauds. Multiple mentions of peer review are now ‘red flags’, and require scrutiny.

The use of techniques like “round robin” and “incestuous” peer reviews to insure that nobody outside a very small groups sees the raw data or is able to criticize it, have severely compromised it as a technique.

Another problem is that SCImago, a major, scientific journal rating organization, lists Switzerland based ‘Entropy’ journal as being oriented to “physics and astronomy”, but also publishing “miscellaneous” articles on other subjects. It is a subsidiary publisher to MDPI, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, also based in Switzerland.

This raises a question: if this research is so telling, why is it not being published in any of the dozen major scientific journals that specialize in its subject?

Thanks for a thoughtful comment, but please let me point out that virtually all food is “organic.” Including the worms.

Much of the “organic” movement is money-grabbing crap.

Actually, crap is organic, too.

If you are truly concerned, just grow your own food. On a small scale, it’s entirely possible to produce fine vegetables (and animals) by mollycoddling, spraying with oil and water, picking off the bugs one-by-one.

On a large scale, don’t believe everything you read, but do shop with deep pockets.

Thanks for a thoughtful comment, but please let me point out that virtually all food is “organic.” Including the worms.

Much of the “organic” movement is money-grabbing crap.

Actually, crap is organic, too.

If you are truly concerned, just grow your own food. On a small scale, it’s entirely possible to produce fine vegetables (and animals) by mollycoddling, spraying with oil and water, picking off the bugs one-by-one.

On a large scale, don’t believe everything you read, but do shop with deep pockets.

Importantly, I did not see that the authors backgrounds qualify them to write a supposedly scholarly article on a biological subject. I have no idea what an independent scientist and consultant is, and I can guarantee that no one trained in computer science and artificial intelligence has any in-depth understanding of life sciences or the complex interactions of an organism with its environment.

Thank you for pointing that out. That - the authors credentials and backgrounds and their lack thereof in that particular scientific field, jumped out to me as well, although you stated it, and the reasons for your and my skepticism, much more succinctly than I ever could.

I think that a lot of people, including those in the MSM and many here do not understand is how the scientific process actually works. There are thousands upon thousands of research papers and studies published every year, some on open sites like this, ones that seem to accept nearly every research papers, and a lot of hypothesis and conclusions are reached. But what isnt always looked at or reported in the MSM or understood by anyone without an understanding of how the scientific process works, is the subsequent scientific peer reviews often tear many of these papers apart. Just because a person or a team submits a research paper to a scientific or quasi scientific website, that doesnt mean that any of the conclusions posited in that research is subsequently proven to be correct.

Unlike you, I am not a scientist, but even I understand that any legitimate scientific paper or study is submitted and then is subject to scientific peer review. Other scientists attempt to replicate the results and either prove the hypothesis to be valid and subject to further study or they find the basis seriously flawed and or invalid and or are not able to replicate any of the same results and the said research paper goes into the scientific dust bin  a dead end in terms of serious research. Some so called research papers submitted are so seriously flawed, that no legitimate scientist would even waste their time with them.

But that is not what gets reported. When some researcher or a team of researchers, even if they publish a paper far afield from their area of expertise, publishes a paper, the MSM and many with no understanding of the scientific process, accepts it as being factual, when in reality, it is just an unproven hypothesis and more often than not, one that ultimately is proven flawed or false.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.